US Small Businesses Sue Over New Tariffs on Dozens of Trading Partners
Quick Look
Two US small businesses sue the Trump administration over new tariffs (up to 12.5%) on 60 economies, including South Korea, citing arbitrary imposition without clear rationale to address forced labor concerns.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The USTR imposed new tariffs under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act after investigating 60 economies for forced labor practices.
By Song Sang-ho WASHINGTON, July 24 (Yonhap) -- Two small U.S. businesses on Friday filed a lawsuit against new tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners that President Donald Trump's administration announced the previous day over forced labor concerns, according to a litigation firm.
The Liberty Justice Center said that it filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of Burlap & Barrel, a New York-based online retailer, and Collective Horology, a California-based retailer, after the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on South Korea and other economies.
The latest U.S. duties came after the USTR conducted investigations into 60 economies under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act to determine whether they had taken sufficient steps to ban imports made with forced labor. The duties took effect Friday as the administration's 150-day 10 percent global tariff lapsed on the day.
The complaint alleges that the USTR acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" by imposing near-uniform tariffs across 60 materially different economies "without a reasoned, record-based explanation" for how the tariffs would address the practices the USTR identified. It also alleges that the USTR failed to explain how taxing those products will cause foreign governments to change their import policies.
The litigation firm pointed out that the new tariffs cover lawful imports with no demonstrated connection to forced labor, including products imported by American small businesses with transparent and responsible supply chains.
"Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law," Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, said.
"The administration allowed one global tariff to expire and immediately replaced it with another under a different statute. Changing the statute doesn't change the law. Every tariff authority has limits, and every administration must respect them."
The firm is the same organization that challenged the Trump administration's emergency tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court in February.
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Retaliatory trade measures from affected countries
Likely · Within weeks
Open Questions
- How will affected countries respond?
- What's the estimated economic impact on the US?
